The Intelligent Building Agents (IBA) project is part of the Embedded Intelligence in Buildings Program in the Engineering Laboratory at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). A key part of the IBA Project is the IBA Laboratory (IBAL), a unique facility consisting of a mixed system of off the shelf equipment, including chillers and air handling units, controlled by a data acquisition system and capable of supporting building system optimization research under realistic and reproducible operating conditions.The database contains the values of approximately 300 sensors/actuators in the IBAL, including both sensor measurements and control actions, as well as approximately 850 process data, which are typically related to control settings and decisions. Each of the sensors/actuators has associated metadata. The metadata, sensors/actuators, and process data are defined on the "metadata", "sensors", and "parameters" tabs in the definitions file. Data are collected every 10 s.The database contains two dashboards: 1) Experiments - select data from individual experiments and 2) Measurements - select individual sensor/actuator and parameter data. The Experiments Dashboard contains three sections. The "Experiment Data Plot" shows plots of the sensor/actuator data selected in the second section, "Experiment/Metadata". There are plots of both scaled and raw data (see the meta data file for the conversion from raw to scaled data). Underneath the plots is a "Download CSV" button; select that button and a csv file of the data in the plot is automatically generated. In "Experiment/Metadata", first select an "Experiment" from the options in the table on the left. A specific experiment or type of experiment can be found by entering terms in the search box. For example, searching for the word "Charge" will bring up experiments in which the ice thermal storage tank is charged. The table of experiments also includes the duration of the experiment in minutes.Once an experiment is selected, specific sensor/actuator data points can be selected from the "Measurements" table on the right. These data can be filtered by subsystem (e.g., primary loop, secondary loop, Chiller1) and/or measurement type (e.g., pressure, flow, temperature). These data will then be shown in the plots at the top. The final section, "Process", contains the process data, which are shown by the subsystem. These data are not shown in the plots but can be downloaded by selecting the "Download CSV" button in the "Process" section. The Measurements Dashboard contains three sections. The "Date Range" section is used to select the time range of the data. The "All Measurements" section is used to select specific sensor/actuator data. As in the Experiments Dashboard, these data can be filtered by subsystem and/or measurement type. The scaled and raw values of the selected data are then plotted in the "Historical Data Plot" section. The "Download CSV" button underneath the plots will automatically download the selected data.

Open Data is most useful when it’s up-to-date. Over the past eight years, NYC Open Data has invested in dataset automation, so that data is updated without human intervention.

As the demand for City data continues to increase, and new technologies continue to surface, our goal is to automate more data, at a faster rate. In the last few months we have been testing tools and processes that should bring us closer to achieving this goal.

These efforts will lead to more reliable data, while allowing the Open Data Team and agency staff to work more efficiently. We plan to invest more time into testing new methods of automation, and have released a this dataset so anyone can track our progress on automations.

Splitgraph serves as an HTTP API that lets you run SQL queries directly on this data to power Web applications. For example:

See the Splitgraph documentation for more information.

Using our intelligently designed data dashboard, you can quickly understand how Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) is lobbying the U.S. government, how much they're spending on it, and most importantly - the bills and specific issues on which they lobby.

Gain an informational edge over the market with our Lobbying Data Intelligence Platform. Search for, filter through, and download data from any period of recorded American lobbying history (1999-present). Perform analysis by company, lobbyist, lobbying firm, government agency, or issue.

For lobbying firms: understand your competitors. Understand who is registering with who. Gain insight on quarterly reports and specific issues other firms are lobbying on.

Our lobbying data is collected and aggregated from the U.S. Senate Office of Public Records from 1999-present and is updated on a regular basis. We utilize advanced data science techniques to ensure accurate data points are collected and ingested, match similar entities across time, and tickerize publicly traded companies that lobby.

Our comprehensive and advanced lobbying database is completed with all the information you need, with more than 1.6 million lobbying contracts ready-for-analysis. We include detailed information on all aspects of federal lobbying, including the following fascinating attributes, among much more:

1. Clients: The publicly traded company, privately owned company, interest group, NGO, or state or local government that employs or retains a lobbyist or lobbying firm.

2. Registrants (Lobbying Firms): Either the name of the lobbying firm hired by the client, or the name of the client if the client employs in-house lobbyists.

3. Lobbyists: The names and past government work experience of the individual lobbyists working on a lobbying contract.

4. General Issues: The general issues for which clients lobby on (ex: ENV - Environment, TOB - Tobacco, FAM - Family Issues/Abortion).

5. Specific Issues: A long text description of the exact bills and specific issues for which clients lobby on.

6. Bills Lobbied On: A parsed version of Specific Issues that catches specific HR, PL, and ACTS lobbied on (ex: H.R. 2347, S. 1117, Tax Cuts and Jobs Act).

7. Agencies Lobbied: The names of one or more of 250+ government agencies lobbied on in the contract (ex: White House, FDA, DOD).

8. Foreign Entities: The names and origin countries of entities affiliated with the client (ex: BNP Paribas: France).

Gain access to our highly unique and actionable U.S. lobbying database. Further information on LobbyingData.com and our alternative datasets and database can be found on our website, or by contacting us through Datarade.

This operation view contains services with shipping, maritime boundaries, and weather information for the west coast of the United States. The services in this web map are powered by ArcGIS GeoEvent Extension for Server and contain alerts for ships in certain boundaries, such as nature preserves, or inclement weather.Some of the widgets contained in this operation view are lists that sort the most important data such as those in geofences and those reporting with hazardous cargo. Data contained in this operation view includes:Maritime Boundaries and Port Information:Maritime Boundaries - Various maritime boundaries information provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAAShipping Information:Proximity Alert - Generated buffer information created from an ArcGIS for GeoEvent Extension for Server processor of military vessels.Ship Position- Simulated shipping information obtained from the US Coast Guard (USCG).Weather Information:Meteorological Service of Environment Canada - Web map service with forecast, analysis, and observation layersforunderstanding current meteorological or oceanographic data.NOAA Lightning Strike Density - Time-enabled map service providing maps of experimental lightning strike density data.NOAA Weather Observations - Time-enabled map service providing map depicting the latest surface weather and marine weather observations.NOAA Weather Radar Mosaic - Time-enabled map service providing maps depicting mosaics of base reflectivity images across the United States.NOAA Weather Satellite Information - Time-enabled map service providing maps depicting visible, infrared, and water vapor imagery.

Abstract

The dashboard project collects new data in each country using three new instruments: a School Survey, a Policy Survey, and a Survey of Public Officials. Data collection involves school visits, classroom observations, legislative reviews, teacher and student assessments, and interviews with teachers, principals, and public officials. In addition, the project draws on some existing data sources to complement the new data it collects. A major objective of the GEPD project was to develop focused, cost-effective instruments and data-collection procedures, so that the dashboard can be inexpensive enough to be applied (and re-applied) in many countries. The team achieved this by streamlining and simplifying existing instruments, and thereby reducing the time required for data collection and training of enumerators.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

Schools, teachers, students, public officials

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The aim of the Global Education Policy Dashboard school survey is to produce nationally representative estimates, which will be able to detect changes in the indicators over time at a minimum power of 80% and with a 0.05 significance level. We also wish to detect differences by urban/rural location. For our school survey, we will employ a two-stage random sample design, where in the first stage a sample of typically around 200 schools, based on local conditions, is drawn, chosen in advance by the Bank staff. In the second stage, a sample of teachers and students will be drawn to answer questions from our survey modules, chosen in the field. A total of 10 teachers will be sampled for absenteeism. Five teachers will be interviewed and given a content knowledge exam. Three 1st grade students will be assessed at random, and a classroom of 4th grade students will be assessed at random. Stratification will be based on the school’s urban/rural classification and based on region. When stratifying by region, we will work with our partners within the country to make sure we include all relevant geographical divisions. For our Survey of Public Officials, we will sample a total of 200 public officials. Roughly 60 officials are typically surveyed at the federal level, while 140 officials will be surveyed at the regional/district level. For selection of officials at the regional and district level, we will employ a cluster sampling strategy, where roughly 10 regional offices (or whatever the secondary administrative unit is called) are chosen at random from among the regions in which schools were sampled. Then among these 10 regions, we also typically select around 10 districts (tertiary administrative level units) from among the districts in which schools werer sampled. The result of this sampling approach is that for 10 clusters we will have links from the school to the district office to the regional office to the central office. Within the regions/districts, five or six officials will be sampled, including the head of organization, HR director, two division directors from finance and planning, and one or two randomly selected professional employees among the finance, planning, and one other service related department chosen at random. At the federal level, we will interview the HR director, finance director, planning director, and three randomly selected service focused departments. In addition to the directors of each of these departments, a sample of 9 professional employees will be chosen in each department at random on the day of the interview.

Sampling deviation

The sample for the Global Education Policy Dashboard in SLE was based in part on a previous sample of 260 schools which were part of an early EGRA study. Details from the sampling for that study are quoted below. An additional booster sample of 40 schools was chosen to be representative of smaller schools of less than 30 learners.

EGRA Details:

"The sampling frame began with the 2019 Annual School Census (ASC) list of primary schools as provided by UNICEF/MBSSE where the sample of 260 schools for this study were obtained from an initial list of 7,154 primary schools. Only schools that meet a pre-defined selection criteria were eligible for sampling.

To achieve the recommended sample size of 10 learners per grade, schools that had an enrolment of at least 30 learners in Grade 2 in 2019 were considered. To achieve a high level of confidence in the findings and generate enough data for analysis, the selection criteria only considered schools that: • had an enrolment of at least 30 learners in grade 1; and • had an active grade 4 in 2019 (enrolment not zero)

The sample was taken from a population of 4,597 primary schools that met the eligibility criteria above, representing 64.3% of all the 7,154 primary schools in Sierra Leone (as per the 2019 school census). Schools with higher numbers of learners were purposefully selected to ensure the sample size could be met in each site.

As a result, a sample of 260 schools were drawn using proportional to size allocation with simple random sampling without replacement in each stratum. In the population, there were 16 districts and five school ownership categories (community, government, mission/religious, private and others). A total of 63 strata were made by forming combinations of the 16 districts and school ownership categories. In each stratum, a sample size was computed proportional to the total population and samples were drawn randomly without replacement. Drawing from other EGRA/EGMA studies conducted by Montrose in the past, a backup sample of up to 78 schools (30% of the sample population) with which enumerator teams can replace sample schools was also be drawn.

In the distribution of sampled schools by ownership, majority of the sampled schools are owned by mission/religious group (62.7%, n=163) followed by the government owned schools at 18.5% (n=48). Additionally, in school distribution by district, majority of the sampled schools (54%) were found in Bo, Kambia, Kenema, Kono, Port Loko and Kailahun districts. Refer to annex 9. for details on the population and sample distribution by district."

Because of the restriction that at least 30 learners were available in Grade 2, we chose to add an additional 40 schools to the sample from among smaller schools, with between 3 and 30 grade 2 students. The objective of this supplement was to make the sample more nationally representative, as the restriction reduced the sampling frame for the EGRA/EGMA sample by over 1,500 schools from 7,154 to 4,597.

The 40 schools were chosen in a manner consistent with the original set of EGRA/EGMA schools. The 16 districts formed the strata. In each stratum, the number of schools selected were proportional to the total population of the stratum, and within stratum schools were chosen with probability proportional to size.

Mode of data collection

Computer Assisted Personal Interview [capi]

Research instrument

The dashboard project collects new data in each country using three new instruments: a School Survey, a Policy Survey, and a Survey of Public Officials. Data collection involves school visits, classroom observations, legislative reviews, teacher and student assessments, and interviews with teachers, principals, and public officials. In addition, the project draws on some existing data sources to complement the new data it collects. A major objective of the GEPD project was to develop focused, cost-effective instruments and data-collection procedures, so that the dashboard can be inexpensive enough to be applied (and re-applied) in many countries. The team achieved this by streamlining and simplifying existing instruments, and thereby reducing the time required for data collection and training of enumerators.

More information pertaining to each of the three instruments can be found below: - School Survey: The School Survey collects data primarily on practices (the quality of service delivery in schools), but also on some de facto policy indicators. It consists of streamlined versions of existing instruments—including Service Delivery Surveys on teachers and inputs/infrastructure, Teach on pedagogical practice, Global Early Child Development Database (GECDD) on school readiness of young children, and the Development World Management Survey (DWMS) on management quality—together with new questions to fill gaps in those instruments. Though the number of modules is similar to the full version of the Service Delivery Indicators (SDI) Survey, the number of items and the complexity of the questions within each module is significantly lower. The School Survey includes 8 short modules: School Information, Teacher Presence, Teacher Survey, Classroom Observation, Teacher Assessment, Early Learner Direct Assessment, School Management Survey, and 4th-grade Student Assessment. For a team of two enumerators, it takes on average about 4 hours to collect all information in a given school. For more information, refer to the Frequently Asked Questions.

• Policy Survey: The Policy Survey collects information to feed into the policy de jure indicators. This survey is filled out by key informants in each country, drawing on their knowledge to identify key elements of the policy framework (as in the SABER approach to policy-data collection that the Bank has used over the past 7 years). The survey includes questions on policies related to teachers, school management, inputs and infrastructure, and learners. In total, there are 52 questions in the survey as of June 2020. The key informant is expected to spend 2-3 days gathering and analyzing the relavant information to answer the survey

Snapshot img

Data Visualization Tools Market Size 2025-2029

The data visualization tools market size is forecast to increase by USD 7.95 billion at a CAGR of 11.2% between 2024 and 2029.

The market is experiencing significant growth due to the increasing demand for business intelligence and AI-powered insights. Companies are recognizing the value of transforming complex data into easily digestible visual representations to inform strategic decision-making. However, this market faces challenges as data complexity and massive data volumes continue to escalate. Organizations must invest in advanced data visualization tools to effectively manage and analyze their data to gain a competitive edge. The ability to automate data visualization processes and integrate AI capabilities will be crucial for companies to overcome the challenges posed by data complexity and volume. By doing so, they can streamline their business operations, enhance data-driven insights, and ultimately drive growth in their respective industries.

What will be the Size of the Data Visualization Tools Market during the forecast period?

Request Free SampleIn today's data-driven business landscape, the market continues to evolve, integrating advanced capabilities to support various sectors in making informed decisions. Data storytelling and preparation are crucial elements, enabling organizations to effectively communicate complex data insights. Real-time data visualization ensures agility, while data security safeguards sensitive information. Data dashboards facilitate data exploration and discovery, offering data-driven finance, strategy, and customer experience. Big data visualization tackles complex datasets, enabling data-driven decision making and innovation. Data blending and filtering streamline data integration and analysis. Data visualization software supports data transformation, cleaning, and aggregation, enhancing data-driven operations and healthcare. On-premises and cloud-based solutions cater to diverse business needs. Data governance, ethics, and literacy are integral components, ensuring data-driven product development, government, and education adhere to best practices. Natural language processing, machine learning, and visual analytics further enrich data-driven insights, enabling interactive charts and data reporting. Data connectivity and data-driven sales fuel business intelligence and marketing, while data discovery and data wrangling simplify data exploration and preparation. The market's continuous dynamism underscores the importance of data culture, data-driven innovation, and data-driven HR, as organizations strive to leverage data to gain a competitive edge.

How is this Data Visualization Tools Industry segmented?

The data visualization tools industry research report provides comprehensive data (region-wise segment analysis), with forecasts and estimates in 'USD million' for the period 2025-2029, as well as historical data from 2019-2023 for the following segments. DeploymentOn-premisesCloudCustomer TypeLarge enterprisesSMEsComponentSoftwareServicesApplicationHuman resourcesFinanceOthersEnd-userBFSIIT and telecommunicationHealthcareRetailOthersGeographyNorth AmericaUSMexicoEuropeFranceGermanyUKMiddle East and AfricaUAEAPACAustraliaChinaIndiaJapanSouth KoreaSouth AmericaBrazilRest of World (ROW)

By Deployment Insights

The on-premises segment is estimated to witness significant growth during the forecast period.The market has experienced notable expansion as businesses across diverse sectors acknowledge the significance of data analysis and representation to uncover valuable insights and inform strategic decisions. Data visualization plays a pivotal role in this domain. On-premises deployment, which involves implementing data visualization tools within an organization's physical infrastructure or dedicated data centers, is a popular choice. This approach offers organizations greater control over their data, ensuring data security, privacy, and adherence to data governance policies. It caters to industries dealing with sensitive data, subject to regulatory requirements, or having stringent security protocols that prohibit cloud-based solutions. Data storytelling, data preparation, data-driven product development, data-driven government, real-time data visualization, data security, data dashboards, data-driven finance, data-driven strategy, big data visualization, data-driven decision making, data blending, data filtering, data visualization software, data exploration, data-driven insights, data-driven customer experience, data mapping, data culture, data cleaning, data-driven operations, data aggregation, data transformation, data-driven healthcare, on-premises data visualization, data governance, data ethics, data discovery, natural language processing, data reporting, data visualization platforms, data-driven innovation, data wrangling, data-driven s

Abstract

JHU Coronavirus COVID-19 Global Cases, by country

Documentation

PHS is updating the Coronavirus Global Cases dataset weekly, Monday, Wednesday and Friday from Cloud Marketplace.

This data comes from the data repository for the 2019 Novel Coronavirus Visual Dashboard operated by the Johns Hopkins University Center for Systems Science and Engineering (JHU CSSE). This database was created in response to the Coronavirus public health emergency to track reported cases in real-time. The data include the location and number of confirmed COVID-19 cases, deaths, and recoveries for all affected countries, aggregated at the appropriate province or state. It was developed to enable researchers, public health authorities and the general public to track the outbreak as it unfolds. Additional information is available in the blog post.

Visual Dashboard (desktop): https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6

Section 2

Included Data Sources are:

• World Health Organization (WHO): https://www.who.int/
• DXY.cn. Pneumonia. 2020. http://3g.dxy.cn/newh5/view/pneumonia.
• BNO News: https://bnonews.com/index.php/2020/02/the-latest-coronavirus-cases/
• National Health Commission of the People’s Republic of China (NHC): http://www.nhc.gov.cn/xcs/yqtb/list_gzbd.shtml
• China CDC (CCDC): http://weekly.chinacdc.cn/news/TrackingtheEpidemic.htm
• Hong Kong Department of Health: https://www.chp.gov.hk/en/features/102465.html
• Macau Government: https://www.ssm.gov.mo/portal/
• Taiwan CDC: https://sites.google.com/cdc.gov.tw/2019ncov/taiwan?authuser=0
• US CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/index.html
• Government of Canada: https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/diseases/coronavirus.html
• Australia Government Department of Health: https://www.health.gov.au/news/coronavirus-update-at-a-glance
• European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC): https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/geographical-distribution-2019-ncov-cases
• Ministry of Health Singapore (MOH): https://www.moh.gov.sg/covid-19
• Italy Ministry of Health: http://www.salute.gov.it/nuovocoronavirus
• 1Point3Arces: https://coronavirus.1point3acres.com/en
• WorldoMeters: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

%3C!-- --%3E

Section 3

**Terms of Use: **

This GitHub repo and its contents herein, including all data, mapping, and analysis, copyright 2020 Johns Hopkins University, all rights reserved, is provided to the public strictly for educational and academic research purposes. The Website relies upon publicly available data from multiple sources, that do not always agree. The Johns Hopkins University hereby disclaims any and all representations and warranties with respect to the Website, including accuracy, fitness for use, and merchantability. Reliance on the Website for medical guidance or use of the Website in commerce is strictly prohibited.

Section 4

**U.S. county-level characteristics relevant to COVID-19 **

Chin, Kahn, Krieger, Buckee, Balsari and Kiang (forthcoming) show that counties differ significantly in biological, demographic and socioeconomic factors that are associated with COVID-19 vulnerability. A range of publicly available county-specific data identifying these key factors, guided by international experiences and consideration of epidemiological parameters of importance, have been combined by the authors and are available for use:

https://github.com/mkiang/county_preparedness/

Using our intelligently designed data dashboard, you can quickly understand how Lockheed Martin Corporation (LMT) is lobbying the U.S. government, how much they're spending on it, and most importantly - the bills and specific issues on which they lobby.

Gain an informational edge over the market with our Lobbying Data Intelligence Platform. Search for, filter through, and download data from any period of recorded American lobbying history (1999-present). Perform analysis by company, lobbyist, lobbying firm, government agency, or issue.

For lobbying firms: understand your competitors. Understand who is registering with who. Gain insight on quarterly reports and specific issues other firms are lobbying on.

Our lobbying data is collected and aggregated from the U.S. Senate Office of Public Records from 1999-present and is updated on a regular basis. We utilize advanced data science techniques to ensure accurate data points are collected and ingested, match similar entities across time, and tickerize publicly traded companies that lobby.

Our comprehensive and advanced lobbying database is completed with all the information you need, with more than 1.6 million lobbying contracts ready-for-analysis. We include detailed information on all aspects of federal lobbying, including the following fascinating attributes, among much more:

1. Clients: The publicly traded company, privately owned company, interest group, NGO, or state or local government that employs or retains a lobbyist or lobbying firm.

2. Registrants (Lobbying Firms): Either the name of the lobbying firm hired by the client, or the name of the client if the client employs in-house lobbyists.

3. Lobbyists: The names and past government work experience of the individual lobbyists working on a lobbying contract.

4. General Issues: The general issues for which clients lobby on (ex: ENV - Environment, TOB - Tobacco, FAM - Family Issues/Abortion).

5. Specific Issues: A long text description of the exact bills and specific issues for which clients lobby on.

6. Bills Lobbied On: A parsed version of Specific Issues that catches specific HR, PL, and ACTS lobbied on (ex: H.R. 2347, S. 1117, Tax Cuts and Jobs Act).

7. Agencies Lobbied: The names of one or more of 250+ government agencies lobbied on in the contract (ex: White House, FDA, DOD).

8. Foreign Entities: The names and origin countries of entities affiliated with the client (ex: BNP Paribas: France).

Gain access to our highly unique and actionable U.S. lobbying database. Further information on LobbyingData.com and our alternative datasets and database can be found on our website, or by contacting us through Datarade.